Only if all the lambda values, when multiplied by the energy matrix, scale each energy value proportionally will we have a vector space. I will show that this is only the case for escape and orbital energy as would be expected. I will also show why relativistic mass is an issue and the problems it brings with it.

EDIT: The above assumes we are considering lambda_1 = lambda_2 = lambda_3. Which will not be the case for all 3 energy values.

Wow Jeffrey you are putting in a lot of effort, I have no idea what you are on about but it looks some real cool thought just by your diagram matrix, hope you get a scientist give this some attention, good luck.

P.s although I do not understand what you are on about, I think the center value of your matrix should be zero extending to zero. And also turned into a 3d matrix .

I don't know if this helps you but the visual universe is a bit like this

X=∞λ0λ1λ0λ1λ0∞

Y=∞ λ0λ1λ0λ1λ0∞

Z=∞λ0λ1λ0λ1λ0∞

t= ∞λ0λ1λ0λ1λ0∞

G=∞λ0λ1λ0λ1λ0∞

But of course the length of amounts of λ0 can be greater or less(λ0λ0λ0), and of course this is a uniform matrix where the real matrix would show a contorted shape and X≠Y etc .

Well, Thebox, I don't know what that was all about but look at the attached graph. There are 4 functions plotted. Three are the result of multiplying the initial calculated values of orbital, escape and free fall kinetic energies. Where the lambda multipliers range between 1 and 10 in steps of 1. As the energy increases then the radial distance from the source will decrease.

The equations used were

1 - Free fall Ke = mGMd/r^2

2 - Escape Ke = GMm/r

3 - Orbital Ke = GMm/(2r)

Immediately it can be seen that both escape and orbital are of the same basic form and will scale in direct proportion but that freefall Ke won't.

On the graph the blue, red and green plots represent lambda scaled versions of escape, orbital and free fall ke respectively. The pink line shows the actual values for free fall Ke at the same radial distances as the escape and orbital Kes.

Where the pink line crosses the orbital line is the light like orbit outside the event horizon. Where the pink line crosses the blue line we find the event horizon.

However, because these calculations are all Newtonian, no account has been taken of relativistic mass. This should increase exponentially, reaching an infinite amount at the event horizon. Which means the kinetic energy is also infinite. Meaning that the gravitational energy ALSO has to become infinite. Otherwise it will not intercept either the blue or red lines and the black hole will no longer trap light. This is where the mathematics breaks down. Or is it?

Now that gravitational waves have been detected I aim to show exactly why it doesn't break down.

If we organize our data so that the energy values for free fall, orbit and escape are E_1, E_2 and E_3 respectively then we can actually describe 3 linear vector spaces.

1) The free fall, orbital space.

2) The free fall, escape space.

3) The orbital, escape space.

These will all scale using the following scalar matrix.

For all the spaces the radial distance of each energy value must be identical. Vector space 1 will scale to show the light-like surface of any viable black hole. Vector space 2 describes the surface of the event horizon of any viable black hole. Vector space 3 shows the energy difference between escape and orbit at any radial distance from the source.

« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 14:18:13 by jeffreyH »

Logged

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.

Then in each case the lambda scalar can take on any value we choose. If it is zero then we can equate that with no energy and no mass. So we end up with an absolutely flat spacetime. We can set it to a value between 0 and 1 or we can even set it to an imaginary or complex value.

Whatever the scale region of most interest lies between the energy surface of the event horizon and the light-like energy surface. At very small scales this is not a tenable environment. The tidal gradients fall withing the radius of elementary particles. As the region is scaled up particles have much more freedom to move as long as the motion is not perpendicular to the field. There has to come a point in the scaling operation where a boundary is reached that brings the surfaces described into the quantum domain.

Logged

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.

Using the term "elementary" in association with quantum-scale, measurable, energy "particle" units (I believe falsely) assumes that our structured world of quantum units and atoms is connected to elemental units in ways we can detect and measure using our usual methods, which employ quantally-structured instrumentations, and quantally-mediated forces.

If an unstructured ether matrix exists which operates via a linear, vibrational, energic mechanism (derived from a first causal point-oscillational world), it would not be possible to detect such an ether using our present quantum technology. An indirect method would be needed.

(Physics denies the existence of an ether matrix on the basis of the old experiments of Michelson and others, which measured the behavior of light under different ambient conditions, using their assumption at the time that any kind of ether would function purely as a medium for transmission of light. However, the kind of ether just mentioned would consist of elemental units which constitute the elemental building blocks of everything, and such ether units would thus be a fundamental part and parcel of light itself, not just a medium for transmitting observable photonic scale units.)

I just wanted to post a basically-different approach to gravity.I believe worth considering.

Energy waves, as we observe them in our quantally-mediated observational experience, actually represent a transition zone, where undetected etheroidal (non-elemental ether) units are responding to some sort of change in the ambient energy setting, and transitioning to subquantal units. In turn, there may occur in this "transition zone" wave, the (possibly transient) appearance of observable photons. The appearance of waveforms may appear to suggest the existence of a fluidic underlying medium, but the smoothness of the waveforms' appearance actually relates to certain properties of the underlying ether, whose energy is mediated by elemental, uniform, etheric units, which make up an underlying, purring, perfectly-linear vibrational matrix. "Wave" processes, therefore, would not be fluidic, but electric.

In my ether model, gravity results from a constriction of the ether in an "auric" zone existing between two solid bodies. In this intervening zone, elemental ether units, extending from the bodies into an elemental-ether continuum in space, are resonating with each other, amidst the energy fields of the bodies, at a higher energy level (forming more connections, as their outward vibrations make contact), so that slight spaces between the vibrating elemental units closes, which constricts the ether in the auric zone, compared to the state of the ether outside of this zone, and producing a gravity effect.

The inertial gravitational pull between the bodies would then be accompanied by a wide-spread field effect (much more diffused than in the case of magnetic fields.) -The inertial gravity effect could be thought of as a "minor" one, in this broader cosmological sense.

That an underlying etheric matrix, composed of elemental units resonating in a perfectly-linear fashion, does exist, is quite apparent by looking at the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. This phenomenon is only made understandable by using a model in which quantum units communicate linearly through an underlying matrix.

It might clarify the ether-model described in my last two posts if I explain what I meant by the term "etheroidal."

In my ether model, the ether matrix consists of a universal, unstructured, sea of elemental ether units, units which are uniform and identical to each other, which interact through a vibrational mechanism, and which were derived from a first-causal world which was point-oscillational. As the elemental units vibrate outwardly, they form loose connections, and as multiple elemental units interact, they form entrainments, which produces larger and larger energy units - "etheroidal" units, and still larger quantum and atomic units. Atomic-scale units interact with each other through energy mechanisms familiar to physics, like spin, vectors, waves, and the like, but they also retain the ability to interact vibrationally with ether units, since they were built up from elemental ether units (see the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.) The quantum-scale energy units are, of course, what make up our atomically-structured world. What evidence is there of contact of our quantum world with the ether?

In my recent posts, I mentioned the idea that the wave effects seen in physics represent zones of transition, between unseen etheroidal ether units, and observable sub-quantal units of our observable world. -Such etheroidal units would be transitioning, between an underlying etheric/vibratory realm, and our structured quantum-atomic realm.

Another possible piece of evidence of contact having been made between etheroidal units, from the ether, and sub-quantal units comes from a field of research in particle physics into mysterious "particle-like" moieties, called Quasiparticles.

Quasiparticles represent moieties which form when tiny subquantal units, like fermions or bosons, are subjected to highly-unusual conditions in a particle-physics laboratory, and form as-yet-undefined combinations with unknown or unseen forces, producing what are being called quasiparticles. Quasiparticles have been referred to as "collective states of excitation," but their exact nature is unknown.

I submit that quasiparticles represent etheroidal units "escaping" their vibratory energy realm, and loosely combining with the sub-quantal particles being observed, producing moieties that are undefinable using our present methodologies.

Basically my ether model claims that our perceptible quantum atomically-structured world of quantal spin/vector/wave - mediated forces has an unstructured ether matrix underlying it, mediated by vibrational etheric elemental forces, derived from a first-causal point-oscillational world. I claim that this is the only kind of model that can rationally account for quantum entanglement.

Math cannot prove a theory correct. It can only prove one incorrect. The sun sets below the horizon and we view it above the horizon. Linearity is meaningless with light in a universe with mass. So no a linear vector space cannot be used with gravitational fields. This has nothing to do with your straw man argument about linear algebra. I would expect more from a Moderator.

I can't answer your OP question Jeff, but I am curious as to this concept of vector spaces and can at least stay 'near' topic...

Quote

: WikiVector spaces are the subject of linear algebra and are well characterized by their dimension, which, roughly speaking, specifies the number of independent directions in the space. Infinite-dimensional vector spaces arise naturally in mathematical analysis, as function spaces, whose vectors are functions. These vector spaces are generally endowed with additional structure, which may be a topology, allowing the consideration of issues of proximity and continuity. Among these topologies, those that are defined by a norm or inner product are more commonly used, as having a notion of distance between two vectors. This is particularly the case of Banach spacesand Hilbert spaces, which are fundamental in mathematical analysis.

...and

Quote

: WikiEuclidean vectors are an example of a vector space. They represent physicalquantities such as forces: any two forces (of the same type) can be added to yield a third, and the multiplication of a force vector by a real multiplier is another force vector. In the same vein, but in a more geometric sense, vectors representing displacements in the plane or in three-dimensional space also form vector spaces.

Could g (gravity) and a (acceleration) be described as force vectors of the same type?Or is a (acceleration) a 'real multiplier'?

I can't answer your OP question Jeff, but I am curious as to this concept of vector spaces and can at least stay 'near' topic...

Quote

: WikiVector spaces are the subject of linear algebra and are well characterized by their dimension, which, roughly speaking, specifies the number of independent directions in the space. Infinite-dimensional vector spaces arise naturally in mathematical analysis, as function spaces, whose vectors are functions. These vector spaces are generally endowed with additional structure, which may be a topology, allowing the consideration of issues of proximity and continuity. Among these topologies, those that are defined by a norm or inner product are more commonly used, as having a notion of distance between two vectors. This is particularly the case of Banach spacesand Hilbert spaces, which are fundamental in mathematical analysis.

...and

Quote

: WikiEuclidean vectors are an example of a vector space. They represent physicalquantities such as forces: any two forces (of the same type) can be added to yield a third, and the multiplication of a force vector by a real multiplier is another force vector. In the same vein, but in a more geometric sense, vectors representing displacements in the plane or in three-dimensional space also form vector spaces.

Could g (gravity) and a (acceleration) be described as force vectors of the same type?Or is a (acceleration) a 'real multiplier'?

The values of g and a are of the same units. Acceleration is a vector so multiplying it by mass, a scalar, gives a force vector. I am not sure what you mean by the term real multiplier. Can you elaborate please?

Logged

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.

: WikiEuclidean vectors are an example of a vector space. They represent physicalquantities such as forces: any two forces (of the same type) can be added to yield a third, and the multiplication of a force vector by a real multiplier is another force vector